V

ἱερεὺς ἐκεῖνος ἀνὴρ τοιαῦτα γράφων· “Ἐξ ἀγαθῆς ἑορτῆςἀγαθὴν ἄγομεν ἄλλην.” “Ἀπὸ Μαγνησίας εἰμὶ τῆς μεγάληςΣιπυλεύς.” “Οὐ γὰρ μικρὰν εἰς Θηβαίων ὕδωρ ἔπτυσεν ὁΔιόνυσος· ἡδὺς μὲν γάρ ἐστι, ποιεῖ δὲ μαίνεσθαι.”ἅλις ἔστω παραδειγμάτων. ἱκανῶς γὰρ οἴομαι πεποιηκέναι 5φανερὸν ὃ προὔκειτό μοι, ὅτι μείζονα ἰσχὺν ἔχει τῆςἐκλογῆς ἡ σύνθεσις. καί μοι δοκεῖ τις οὐκ ἂν ἁμαρτεῖνεἰκάσας αὐτὴν τῇ Ὁμηρικῇ Ἀθηνᾷ· ἐκείνη τε γὰρ τὸνὈδυσσέα τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἄλλοτε ἀλλοῖον ἐποίει φαίνεσθαι,τοτὲ μὲν μικρὸν καὶ ῥυσὸν καὶ αἰσχρὸν 10πτωχῷ λευγαλέῳ ἐναλίγκιον ἠδὲ γέροντι,τοτὲ δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ ῥάβδῳ πάλιν ἐφαψαμένημείζονά τ’ εἰσιδέειν καὶ πάσσονα θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι, κὰδ δὲ κάρητοςοὔλας ἧκε κόμας ὑακινθίνῳ ἄνθει ὁμοίας, 15αὕτη τε τὰ αὐτὰ λαμβάνουσα ὀνόματα τοτὲ μὲν ἄμορφα καὶπτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὰ νοήματα, τοτὲ δ’ὑψηλὰ καὶ πλούσια [καὶ ἁδρὰ] καὶ καλά. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἦνσχεδὸν ᾧ μάλιστα διαλλάττει ποιητής τε ποιητοῦ καὶ ῥήτωρῥήτορος, τὸ συντιθέναι δεξιῶς τὰ ὀνόματα. τοῖς μὲν οὖν 20ἀρχαίοις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσι πολλὴ ἐπιτήδευσις ἦν αὐτοῦ, παρ’ὃ καὶ καλά ἐστιν αὐτῶν τά τε μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη καὶ οἱλόγοι· τοῖς δὲ μεταγενεστέροις οὐκέτι πλὴν ὀλίγων· χρόνῳ δ’[93]writes, for instance, “After a goodly festival another goodly one keep we.” “Of Magnesia am I, the mighty land, a man of Sipylus I.” “No little drop into the Theban waters spewed Dionysus: Oh yea, sweet it is, but madness it engendereth.”[98]Enough of examples. I think I have I sufficiently proved my point that composition is more effective than selection. In fact, it seems to me that one might fairly compare the former to Athena in Homer. For she used to make the same Odysseus appear now in one form, now in another,—at one time puny and wrinkled and ugly,In semblance like to a beggar wretched and eld-forlorn,[99]at another time, by a fresh touch of the selfsame wand,She moulded him taller to see, and broader: his wavy hairShe caused o’er his shoulders to fall as the hyacinth’s purple rare.[100]So, too, composition takes the same words, and makes the ideas they convey appear at one time unlovely, beggarly and mean; at another, exalted, rich and beautiful. A main difference between poet and poet, orator and orator, really does lie in the aptness with which they arrange their words. Almost all the ancients made a special study of this; and consequently their poems, their lyrics, and their prose are things of beauty. But among their successors, with few exceptions, this was no longer so.

πτωχῷ λευγαλέῳ ἐναλίγκιον ἠδὲ γέροντι,

τοτὲ δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ ῥάβδῳ πάλιν ἐφαψαμένη

μείζονά τ’ εἰσιδέειν καὶ πάσσονα θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι, κὰδ δὲ κάρητοςοὔλας ἧκε κόμας ὑακινθίνῳ ἄνθει ὁμοίας, 15

αὕτη τε τὰ αὐτὰ λαμβάνουσα ὀνόματα τοτὲ μὲν ἄμορφα καὶπτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὰ νοήματα, τοτὲ δ’ὑψηλὰ καὶ πλούσια [καὶ ἁδρὰ] καὶ καλά. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἦνσχεδὸν ᾧ μάλιστα διαλλάττει ποιητής τε ποιητοῦ καὶ ῥήτωρῥήτορος, τὸ συντιθέναι δεξιῶς τὰ ὀνόματα. τοῖς μὲν οὖν 20ἀρχαίοις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσι πολλὴ ἐπιτήδευσις ἦν αὐτοῦ, παρ’ὃ καὶ καλά ἐστιν αὐτῶν τά τε μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη καὶ οἱλόγοι· τοῖς δὲ μεταγενεστέροις οὐκέτι πλὴν ὀλίγων· χρόνῳ δ’

[93]writes, for instance, “After a goodly festival another goodly one keep we.” “Of Magnesia am I, the mighty land, a man of Sipylus I.” “No little drop into the Theban waters spewed Dionysus: Oh yea, sweet it is, but madness it engendereth.”[98]Enough of examples. I think I have I sufficiently proved my point that composition is more effective than selection. In fact, it seems to me that one might fairly compare the former to Athena in Homer. For she used to make the same Odysseus appear now in one form, now in another,—at one time puny and wrinkled and ugly,In semblance like to a beggar wretched and eld-forlorn,[99]at another time, by a fresh touch of the selfsame wand,She moulded him taller to see, and broader: his wavy hairShe caused o’er his shoulders to fall as the hyacinth’s purple rare.[100]So, too, composition takes the same words, and makes the ideas they convey appear at one time unlovely, beggarly and mean; at another, exalted, rich and beautiful. A main difference between poet and poet, orator and orator, really does lie in the aptness with which they arrange their words. Almost all the ancients made a special study of this; and consequently their poems, their lyrics, and their prose are things of beauty. But among their successors, with few exceptions, this was no longer so.

[93]

writes, for instance, “After a goodly festival another goodly one keep we.” “Of Magnesia am I, the mighty land, a man of Sipylus I.” “No little drop into the Theban waters spewed Dionysus: Oh yea, sweet it is, but madness it engendereth.”[98]

Enough of examples. I think I have I sufficiently proved my point that composition is more effective than selection. In fact, it seems to me that one might fairly compare the former to Athena in Homer. For she used to make the same Odysseus appear now in one form, now in another,—at one time puny and wrinkled and ugly,

In semblance like to a beggar wretched and eld-forlorn,[99]

at another time, by a fresh touch of the selfsame wand,

She moulded him taller to see, and broader: his wavy hairShe caused o’er his shoulders to fall as the hyacinth’s purple rare.[100]

So, too, composition takes the same words, and makes the ideas they convey appear at one time unlovely, beggarly and mean; at another, exalted, rich and beautiful. A main difference between poet and poet, orator and orator, really does lie in the aptness with which they arrange their words. Almost all the ancients made a special study of this; and consequently their poems, their lyrics, and their prose are things of beauty. But among their successors, with few exceptions, this was no longer so.

1 ἀνὴρ libri: cf. D.H. p. 169 5 ἅλις F: ἂν P || ἔστω F: ἔστω τῶν PMV || ἱκαν(ῶς) P17 δοκεῖ τις οὐκ ἂν PV: οὐ δοκεῖ τις EFM || ἁμαρτάνειν PMV 10 μὲν μικρὸν καὶ ῥυσὸν EF: μὲν ῥυσὸν καὶ μικρὸν PMV 11 ἠδὲ] ἠδὲ καὶ F || γέροντα P 12 ῥάβδω P 15 ὑακινθίν(ω) P 16 αὕτη Sylburgius: αὐτή libri 17 πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ PMV: ταπεινὰ καὶ πτωχὰ EF || δὲ PMV 18 καὶ ἁδρὰ delevit Sadaeus || τοῦτ’ ἦν σχεδὸν ὧι PE: τοῦτ’ ἦν ὃ (ᾧ M) FM: τούτῳ V 19 διαλάττει P 20 τὸ EFP: τῷ MV 21 πᾶσιν P || ἐπιτήδευσις Sylburgius: ἐπίδοσις libri 22 τε om. PV 23 οὐκ ἔστι P || χρον(ω) P2. Possibly Hegesias began one of his books in this grandiloquent fashion, referring to his birth in Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sipylus.3.μικράν: understand ψακάδα or λιβάδα. Casaubon conjectured μιαρὰν: Reiske, μικρὰν ‹χολὴν›.4.ἡδύς: sc. ὁ ποταμός. An easy course would be to change ἡδύς to ἡδύ with Reiske; but there is no manuscript variant, and the ambiguity and awkward ellipse may be part of Hegesias’ offence.13. Vettori suggested the omission here of θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι.16. Cp. Isocr. Paneg. § 8 ἐπειδὴ δ’ οἱ λόγοι τοιαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν φύσιν, ὥσθ’ οἷον τ’ εἶναι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πολλαχῶς ἐξηγήσασθαι, καὶ τά τε μεγάλα ταπεινὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῖς μικροῖς περιθεῖναι, κτλ.17. The antitheses are ὑψηλά)(ταπεινά, πλούσια)(πτωχά, καλά)(ἄμορφα. The order πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινά in PMV gives a chiasmus. ἁδρά is the gloss of some rhetorician on ὑψηλά (cp.de Demosth.c. 34, where this gloss actually occurs in one of the manuscripts). The word ἁδρός does not belong to Dionysius’ rhetorical terminology; cp. Long. p. 194.18.ἦν, ‘was all the time,’ ‘is after all’ (cp.1928, etc.).20. Quintil. ix. 4. 16 “itaque ut confiteor, paene ultimam oratoribus artem compositionis, quae quidem perfecta sit, contigisse: ita illis quoque priscis habitam inter curas, in quantum adhuc profecerant, puto. neque enim mihi quamlibet magnus auctor Cicero persuaserit, Lysian, Herodotum, Thucydiden parum studiosos eius fuisse”; Dionys. Hal.de Demosth.c. 36 πολλή τις ἐγένετο ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπιθυμία καὶ πρόνοια τοῦ καλῶς ἁρμόττειν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔν τε μέτροις καὶ δίχα μέτρων, καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι σπουδαίας ἐβουλήθησαν ἐξενεγκεῖν γραφάς, οὐ μόνον ἐζήτησαν ὀνομάσαι τὰ νοήματα καλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὰ ‹τὰ ὀνόματα› εὐκόσμῳ συνθέσει περιλαβεῖν.21. The conjectureἐπιτήδευσιςmay be illustrated by706,21219,25618, and also byde Demosth.c. 36 (the sentence preceding that just quoted).—The manuscript reading ἐπίδοσις might possibly be retained and translated “made numerous contributions to it.” Disselbeck suggests δόσις, and comparesde Demosth.cc. 18, 48, 51.

2. Possibly Hegesias began one of his books in this grandiloquent fashion, referring to his birth in Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sipylus.

3.μικράν: understand ψακάδα or λιβάδα. Casaubon conjectured μιαρὰν: Reiske, μικρὰν ‹χολὴν›.

4.ἡδύς: sc. ὁ ποταμός. An easy course would be to change ἡδύς to ἡδύ with Reiske; but there is no manuscript variant, and the ambiguity and awkward ellipse may be part of Hegesias’ offence.

13. Vettori suggested the omission here of θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι.

16. Cp. Isocr. Paneg. § 8 ἐπειδὴ δ’ οἱ λόγοι τοιαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν φύσιν, ὥσθ’ οἷον τ’ εἶναι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πολλαχῶς ἐξηγήσασθαι, καὶ τά τε μεγάλα ταπεινὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῖς μικροῖς περιθεῖναι, κτλ.

17. The antitheses are ὑψηλά)(ταπεινά, πλούσια)(πτωχά, καλά)(ἄμορφα. The order πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινά in PMV gives a chiasmus. ἁδρά is the gloss of some rhetorician on ὑψηλά (cp.de Demosth.c. 34, where this gloss actually occurs in one of the manuscripts). The word ἁδρός does not belong to Dionysius’ rhetorical terminology; cp. Long. p. 194.

18.ἦν, ‘was all the time,’ ‘is after all’ (cp.1928, etc.).

20. Quintil. ix. 4. 16 “itaque ut confiteor, paene ultimam oratoribus artem compositionis, quae quidem perfecta sit, contigisse: ita illis quoque priscis habitam inter curas, in quantum adhuc profecerant, puto. neque enim mihi quamlibet magnus auctor Cicero persuaserit, Lysian, Herodotum, Thucydiden parum studiosos eius fuisse”; Dionys. Hal.de Demosth.c. 36 πολλή τις ἐγένετο ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπιθυμία καὶ πρόνοια τοῦ καλῶς ἁρμόττειν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔν τε μέτροις καὶ δίχα μέτρων, καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι σπουδαίας ἐβουλήθησαν ἐξενεγκεῖν γραφάς, οὐ μόνον ἐζήτησαν ὀνομάσαι τὰ νοήματα καλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὰ ‹τὰ ὀνόματα› εὐκόσμῳ συνθέσει περιλαβεῖν.

21. The conjectureἐπιτήδευσιςmay be illustrated by706,21219,25618, and also byde Demosth.c. 36 (the sentence preceding that just quoted).—The manuscript reading ἐπίδοσις might possibly be retained and translated “made numerous contributions to it.” Disselbeck suggests δόσις, and comparesde Demosth.cc. 18, 48, 51.

ὕστερον παντάπασιν ἠμελήθη καὶ οὐδεὶς ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖοναὐτὸ εἶναι οὐδὲ συμβάλλεσθαί τι τῷ κάλλει τῶν λόγων·τοιγάρτοι τοιαύτας συντάξεις κατέλιπον οἵας οὐδεὶς ὑπομένειμέχρι κορωνίδος διελθεῖν, Φύλαρχον λέγω καὶ Δοῦριν καὶΠολύβιον καὶ Ψάωνα καὶ τὸν Καλλατιανὸν Δημήτριον 5Ἱερώνυμόν τε καὶ Ἀντίγονον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην καὶ Ἡγησιάνακτακαὶ ἄλλους μυρίους· ὧν ἁπάντων εἰ τὰ ὀνόματαβουλοίμην λέγειν, ἐπιλείψει με ὁ τῆς ἡμέρας χρόνος. καὶ τίδεῖ τούτους θαυμάζειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοικαὶ τὰς διαλεκτικὰς ἐκφέροντες τέχνας οὕτως εἰσὶν 10ἄθλιοι περὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων ὥστε αἰδεῖσθαι καὶλέγειν; ἀπόχρη δὲ τεκμηρίῳ χρήσασθαι τοῦ λόγου Χρυσίππῳτῷ Στωϊκῷ (περαιτέρω γὰρ οὐκ ἂν προβαίην)· τούτου γὰροὔτ’ ἄμεινον οὐδεὶς τὰς διαλεκτικὰς τέχνας ἠκρίβωσεν οὔτεἁρμονίᾳ χείρονι συνταχθέντας ἐξήνεγκε λόγους τῶν γοῦν 15ὀνόματος καὶ δόξης ἀξιωθέντων. καίτοι σπουδάζειν γέ τινες[95]At last, in later times, it was utterly neglected; no one thought it absolutely indispensable, or that it contributed anything to the beauty of discourse. Consequently they left behind them lucubrations that no one has the patience to read from beginning to end. I mean men like Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis, Hieronymus, Antigonus, Heracleides, Hegesianax, and countless others: a whole day would not be enough if I tried to repeat the bare names of them all.[101]But why wonder at these, when even those who call themselves professors of philosophy and publish manuals of dialectic fail so wretchedly in the arrangement of their words that I shrink from even mentioning their names? It is quite enough to point, in proof of my statement, to Chrysippus the Stoic: for farther I will not go. Among writers who have achieved any name or distinction, none have written their treatises on dialectic with greater accuracy, and none have published discourses which are worse specimens of composition. And yet some of them claimed

[95]At last, in later times, it was utterly neglected; no one thought it absolutely indispensable, or that it contributed anything to the beauty of discourse. Consequently they left behind them lucubrations that no one has the patience to read from beginning to end. I mean men like Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis, Hieronymus, Antigonus, Heracleides, Hegesianax, and countless others: a whole day would not be enough if I tried to repeat the bare names of them all.[101]But why wonder at these, when even those who call themselves professors of philosophy and publish manuals of dialectic fail so wretchedly in the arrangement of their words that I shrink from even mentioning their names? It is quite enough to point, in proof of my statement, to Chrysippus the Stoic: for farther I will not go. Among writers who have achieved any name or distinction, none have written their treatises on dialectic with greater accuracy, and none have published discourses which are worse specimens of composition. And yet some of them claimed

[95]

At last, in later times, it was utterly neglected; no one thought it absolutely indispensable, or that it contributed anything to the beauty of discourse. Consequently they left behind them lucubrations that no one has the patience to read from beginning to end. I mean men like Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis, Hieronymus, Antigonus, Heracleides, Hegesianax, and countless others: a whole day would not be enough if I tried to repeat the bare names of them all.[101]But why wonder at these, when even those who call themselves professors of philosophy and publish manuals of dialectic fail so wretchedly in the arrangement of their words that I shrink from even mentioning their names? It is quite enough to point, in proof of my statement, to Chrysippus the Stoic: for farther I will not go. Among writers who have achieved any name or distinction, none have written their treatises on dialectic with greater accuracy, and none have published discourses which are worse specimens of composition. And yet some of them claimed

1 οὐδεῖσ P 2 τι om. P || τ(ω) P 3 κατέλειπον P 4 φύταρχον PM 5 σάωνα PMV: σφτατωνα F || καλατιανὸν P: καλαντιανὸν MV: καλανδιανὸν F 6 ἀντίγονον F: ἀντίλογον PMV || ἡγησι(α)νακτα P,F: ἡγησίννακτα M: ἡγησίαν μάγνητα V 7 εἰ post ὀνόματα ponunt PMV 9 οἱ F2P: om. F1: οἱ τὴν MV 12 τῶι λόγωι χρυσίππου τοῦ στωικοῦ PMV 13 τοῦτο F 14 οὔτε (ante ἄμεινον) PMV 15 χείρονι ante ἁρμονίᾳ habent PMV || γ’ οὖν F,M: om. PV 16 σπουδάζειν PMV: σπουδάζεσθαι F1.ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι: pleonasm. Perhaps ᾤετ’ ἀσκεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι, or the like.4.Phylarchus: a native of Athens, or (acc. to some ancient authorities) of Naucratis in Egypt. He flourished under Ptolemy Euergetes (247-222B.C.), and continued (in 28 books) the historical works of Hieronymus and Duris. The period covered was that from Pyrrhus’ invasion of the Peloponnese to the death of Cleomenes (272-220B.C.). Remains in C. MüllerFragm. Hist. Gr.i. 334-58.Duris of Samos: a pupil of Theophrastus. Flourished under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247B.C.); wrote a history which extended from the battle of Leuctra to the year 281 or later. Among his other writings was a Life of Agathocles. Fragments in C. Müller ii. 466-88. He is mentioned in Cic.ad Att.vi. 1. 18: “num idcirco Duris Samius, homo in historia diligens, quod cum multis erravit, irridetur?”5.Polybius: see Introduction, pp.51,52supra.Psaon, of Plataea: a third-century historian, who wrote in thirty books. Cp. C. Müller iii. 198 (and ii. 360).Demetrius(of Callatis, Calatis, Callatia, or Callantia: the town appears under all these names): wrote thirty books of history in the third century. Cp. C. Müller iv. 380, 381.6.Hieronymus, of Cardia: wrote, in the third century, a history of the Diadochi and the Epigoni. Fragments in C. Müller ii. 450-61.Antigonus: of uncertain date (probably second century) and country, but apparently identical with the Antigonus mentioned, among writers who had touched on early Roman history, inAntiqq. Rom.i. 6 πρῶτον μέν, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν ἐπιδραμόντος Ἱερωνύμου τοῦ Καρδιανοῦ συγγραφέως, ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν Ἐπιγόνων πραγματείᾳ· ἔπειτα Τιμαίου τοῦ Σικελιώτου, τὰ μὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ἱστορίαις ἀφηγησαμένου, τοὺς δὲ πρὸς Πύρρον τὸν Ἠπειρώτην πολέμους εἰς ἰδίαν καταχωρίσαντος πραγματείαν· ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Ἀντιγόνου τε καὶ Πολυβίου, καὶ Σιληνοῦ, καὶ μυρίων ἄλλων τοῖς αὐτοῖς πράγμασιν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἐπιβαλόντων· ὧν ἕκαστος ὀλίγα, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὰ διεσπουδασμένως οὐδὲ ἀκριβῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων ἀκουσμάτων συνθείς, ἀνέγραψεν.—In the present passage Ἀντίλογον, Ἀντίλοχον, Ἀντίοχον, and Ἀμφίλοχον are also read or conjectured.Heracleides: a historian who probably flourished during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146B.C.).Hegesianax: a second-century historian, who seems to have written on the history and legends of Troy (Τρωϊκά). Cp. C. Müller iii. 68-70.8. Cp. Demosth.de Cor.§ 296 ἐπιλείψει με λέγοντα ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα, andEpist. ad. Hebr.xi. 32 καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω; ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεών, κτλ. So Cic.Rosc. Am.32. 89 “tempus, hercule, te citius quam oratio deficeret,” andVerr.ii. 2, 21, 52 “nam me dies, vox, latera deficiant, si hoc nunc vociferari velim, quam miserum indignumque sit,” etc.9.ὅπου γε: cp. Long.de Subl.iv. 4 τί δεῖ περὶ Τιμαίου λέγειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ ἥρωες ἐκεῖνοι, Ξενοφῶντα λέγω καὶ Πλάτωνα, καίτοιγε ἐκ τῆς Σωκράτους ὄντες παλαίστρας, ὅμως διὰ τὰ οὕτως μικροχαρῆ ποτε ἑαυτῶν ἐπιλανθάνονται;12. The reading τῷ λόγῳ Χρυσίππου τοῦ Στωικοῦ (PMV) would mean “to point, in proof, to the style (τῷ λόγῳ = ‘discourse,’ ‘writing,’ ‘style’; cp.962) of Chrysippus.” With the general estimate compare Cic.de Fin.iv. 3. 7 “quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes, Chrysippus etiam, sed sic, ut, si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil aliud legere debeat.”13. The manuscript reading προβαίην should be retained, as against Usener’s conjecture προβαῖεν, which perhaps could hardly mean ‘none could sink to greater depths than he,’—if that is the sense intended by Usener. Cp. Aesch.Prom. V.247 μή πού τι προὔβης τῶνδε καὶ περαιτέρω—words which Dionysius may have had in mind; and PlatoPhaedr.239Dἃ δῆλα καὶ οὐκ ἄξιον περαιτέρω προβαίνειν.16.σπουδάζειν: Usener adopts F’s reading σπουδάζεσθαι, with the remark “medii rari vestigium servandum erat.” But he quotes no examples; and Dionysius elsewhere uses the active (e.g. σπουδαζόντων,668supra). The verb is so frequently found in a passive form and signification, that it seems unlikely that forms common to passive and middle would be used in the middle when the active was available. A middlefuture, σπουδάσομαι, occurs in PlatoEuthyphro3Band in Demosth.Mid.213; but thefuturemiddle in many verbs stands quite by itself, and in the passage of Demosthenes we have σπουδάσεται ... σπουδάσατε, while in the passage of Plato there is an important variation in the reading.

1.ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι: pleonasm. Perhaps ᾤετ’ ἀσκεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι, or the like.

4.Phylarchus: a native of Athens, or (acc. to some ancient authorities) of Naucratis in Egypt. He flourished under Ptolemy Euergetes (247-222B.C.), and continued (in 28 books) the historical works of Hieronymus and Duris. The period covered was that from Pyrrhus’ invasion of the Peloponnese to the death of Cleomenes (272-220B.C.). Remains in C. MüllerFragm. Hist. Gr.i. 334-58.

Duris of Samos: a pupil of Theophrastus. Flourished under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247B.C.); wrote a history which extended from the battle of Leuctra to the year 281 or later. Among his other writings was a Life of Agathocles. Fragments in C. Müller ii. 466-88. He is mentioned in Cic.ad Att.vi. 1. 18: “num idcirco Duris Samius, homo in historia diligens, quod cum multis erravit, irridetur?”

5.Polybius: see Introduction, pp.51,52supra.

Psaon, of Plataea: a third-century historian, who wrote in thirty books. Cp. C. Müller iii. 198 (and ii. 360).

Demetrius(of Callatis, Calatis, Callatia, or Callantia: the town appears under all these names): wrote thirty books of history in the third century. Cp. C. Müller iv. 380, 381.

6.Hieronymus, of Cardia: wrote, in the third century, a history of the Diadochi and the Epigoni. Fragments in C. Müller ii. 450-61.

Antigonus: of uncertain date (probably second century) and country, but apparently identical with the Antigonus mentioned, among writers who had touched on early Roman history, inAntiqq. Rom.i. 6 πρῶτον μέν, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν ἐπιδραμόντος Ἱερωνύμου τοῦ Καρδιανοῦ συγγραφέως, ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν Ἐπιγόνων πραγματείᾳ· ἔπειτα Τιμαίου τοῦ Σικελιώτου, τὰ μὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ἱστορίαις ἀφηγησαμένου, τοὺς δὲ πρὸς Πύρρον τὸν Ἠπειρώτην πολέμους εἰς ἰδίαν καταχωρίσαντος πραγματείαν· ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Ἀντιγόνου τε καὶ Πολυβίου, καὶ Σιληνοῦ, καὶ μυρίων ἄλλων τοῖς αὐτοῖς πράγμασιν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἐπιβαλόντων· ὧν ἕκαστος ὀλίγα, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὰ διεσπουδασμένως οὐδὲ ἀκριβῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων ἀκουσμάτων συνθείς, ἀνέγραψεν.—In the present passage Ἀντίλογον, Ἀντίλοχον, Ἀντίοχον, and Ἀμφίλοχον are also read or conjectured.

Heracleides: a historian who probably flourished during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146B.C.).

Hegesianax: a second-century historian, who seems to have written on the history and legends of Troy (Τρωϊκά). Cp. C. Müller iii. 68-70.

8. Cp. Demosth.de Cor.§ 296 ἐπιλείψει με λέγοντα ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα, andEpist. ad. Hebr.xi. 32 καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω; ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεών, κτλ. So Cic.Rosc. Am.32. 89 “tempus, hercule, te citius quam oratio deficeret,” andVerr.ii. 2, 21, 52 “nam me dies, vox, latera deficiant, si hoc nunc vociferari velim, quam miserum indignumque sit,” etc.

9.ὅπου γε: cp. Long.de Subl.iv. 4 τί δεῖ περὶ Τιμαίου λέγειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ ἥρωες ἐκεῖνοι, Ξενοφῶντα λέγω καὶ Πλάτωνα, καίτοιγε ἐκ τῆς Σωκράτους ὄντες παλαίστρας, ὅμως διὰ τὰ οὕτως μικροχαρῆ ποτε ἑαυτῶν ἐπιλανθάνονται;

12. The reading τῷ λόγῳ Χρυσίππου τοῦ Στωικοῦ (PMV) would mean “to point, in proof, to the style (τῷ λόγῳ = ‘discourse,’ ‘writing,’ ‘style’; cp.962) of Chrysippus.” With the general estimate compare Cic.de Fin.iv. 3. 7 “quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes, Chrysippus etiam, sed sic, ut, si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil aliud legere debeat.”

13. The manuscript reading προβαίην should be retained, as against Usener’s conjecture προβαῖεν, which perhaps could hardly mean ‘none could sink to greater depths than he,’—if that is the sense intended by Usener. Cp. Aesch.Prom. V.247 μή πού τι προὔβης τῶνδε καὶ περαιτέρω—words which Dionysius may have had in mind; and PlatoPhaedr.239Dἃ δῆλα καὶ οὐκ ἄξιον περαιτέρω προβαίνειν.

16.σπουδάζειν: Usener adopts F’s reading σπουδάζεσθαι, with the remark “medii rari vestigium servandum erat.” But he quotes no examples; and Dionysius elsewhere uses the active (e.g. σπουδαζόντων,668supra). The verb is so frequently found in a passive form and signification, that it seems unlikely that forms common to passive and middle would be used in the middle when the active was available. A middlefuture, σπουδάσομαι, occurs in PlatoEuthyphro3Band in Demosth.Mid.213; but thefuturemiddle in many verbs stands quite by itself, and in the passage of Demosthenes we have σπουδάσεται ... σπουδάσατε, while in the passage of Plato there is an important variation in the reading.

προσεποιήθησαν αὐτῶν καὶ περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ὡς ἀναγκαῖονὂν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τέχνας γέ τινας ἔγραψαν ὑπὲρ τῆς συντάξεωςτῶν τοῦ λόγου μορίων· ἀλλὰ πολύ τι πάντες ἀπὸ τῆςἀληθείας ἀπεπλάγχθησαν καὶ οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον, τί ποτ’ ἐστὶτὸ ποιοῦν ἡδεῖαν καὶ καλὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν. ἐγὼ γοῦν ὅτε 5διέγνων συντάττεσθαι ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, ἐζήτουν εἴ τιτοῖς πρότερον εἴρηται περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆςΣτοᾶς φιλοσόφοις, εἰδὼς τοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ μικρὰν φροντίδα τοῦλεκτικοῦ τόπου ποιουμένους· δεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῖς τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν.οὐδαμῇ δ’ οὐδὲν εἰρημένον ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ὁρῶν τῶν γοῦν 10ὀνόματος ἠξιωμένων οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτ’ ἔλαττον εἰς ἣν ἐγὼπροῄρημαι πραγματείαν, ἃς δὲ Χρύσιππος καταλέλοιπεσυντάξεις διττὰς ἐπιγραφὴν ἐχούσας “περὶ τῆς συντάξεωςτῶν τοῦ λόγου μερῶν” οὐ ῥητορικὴν θεωρίαν ἐχούσας ἀλλὰδιαλεκτικήν, ὡς ἴσασιν οἱ τὰς βίβλους ἀνεγνωκότες, ὑπὲρ 15ἀξιωμάτων συντάξεως ἀληθῶν τε καὶ ψευδῶν καὶ δυνατῶνκαὶ ἀδυνάτων ἐνδεχομένων τε καὶ μεταπιπτόντων καὶ ἀμφιβόλωνκαὶ ἄλλων τινῶν τοιουτοτρόπων, οὐδεμίαν οὔτ’ ὠφέλειανοὔτε χρείαν τοῖς πολιτικοῖς λόγοις συμβαλλομένας εἰς γοῦνἡδονὴν καὶ κάλλος ἑρμηνείας, ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τὴν 20σύνθεσιν· ταύτης μὲν τῆς πραγματείας ἀπέστην, ἐσκόπουνδ’ αὐτὸς ἐπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ γενόμενος, εἴ τινα δυναίμην εὑρεῖνφυσικὴν ἀφορμήν, ἐπειδὴ παντὸς πράγματος καὶ πάσης ζητήσεωςαὕτη δοκεῖ κρατίστη εἶναι ἀρχή. ἁψάμενος δέ τινωνθεωρημάτων καὶ δόξας ὁδῷ μοι τὸ πρᾶγμα χωρεῖν ὡς ἔμαθον 25ἑτέρωσέ ποι ταύτην ἄγουσαν ἐμὲ τὴν ὁδόν, οὐχ ὅποι προὐθέμην[97]to make a serious study of this department also, as being absolutely essential to good writing, and wrote some manuals on the grouping of the parts of speech. But they all went far astray from the truth and never even dreamt what it is that makes composition attractive and beautiful. At any rate, when I resolved to treat of this subject methodically, I tried to find out whether anything at all had been said about it by earlier writers, and particularly by the philosophers of the Porch, because I knew that these worthies were accustomed to pay no little attention to the department of discourse: one must give them their due. But in no single instance did I light upon any contribution, great or small, made by any author, of any reputation at all events, to the subject of my choice. As for the two treatises which Chrysippus has bequeathed to us, entitled “on the grouping of the parts of speech,” they contain, as those who have read the books are aware, not a rhetorical but a dialectical investigation, dealing with the grouping of propositions, true and false, possible and impossible, admissible and variable, ambiguous, and so forth. These contribute no assistance or benefit to civil oratory, so far at any rate as charm and beauty of style are concerned; and yet these qualities should be the chief aim of composition. So I desisted from this inquiry, and falling back upon my own resources proceeded to consider whether I could find some starting-point indicated by nature itself, since nature is generally accepted as the best first principle in every operation and every inquiry. So applying myself to certain lines of investigation, I was beginning to think that the plan was making fair progress, when I became aware that my path of progress was leading me in a quite different direction, and not towards the goal which I

[97]to make a serious study of this department also, as being absolutely essential to good writing, and wrote some manuals on the grouping of the parts of speech. But they all went far astray from the truth and never even dreamt what it is that makes composition attractive and beautiful. At any rate, when I resolved to treat of this subject methodically, I tried to find out whether anything at all had been said about it by earlier writers, and particularly by the philosophers of the Porch, because I knew that these worthies were accustomed to pay no little attention to the department of discourse: one must give them their due. But in no single instance did I light upon any contribution, great or small, made by any author, of any reputation at all events, to the subject of my choice. As for the two treatises which Chrysippus has bequeathed to us, entitled “on the grouping of the parts of speech,” they contain, as those who have read the books are aware, not a rhetorical but a dialectical investigation, dealing with the grouping of propositions, true and false, possible and impossible, admissible and variable, ambiguous, and so forth. These contribute no assistance or benefit to civil oratory, so far at any rate as charm and beauty of style are concerned; and yet these qualities should be the chief aim of composition. So I desisted from this inquiry, and falling back upon my own resources proceeded to consider whether I could find some starting-point indicated by nature itself, since nature is generally accepted as the best first principle in every operation and every inquiry. So applying myself to certain lines of investigation, I was beginning to think that the plan was making fair progress, when I became aware that my path of progress was leading me in a quite different direction, and not towards the goal which I

[97]

to make a serious study of this department also, as being absolutely essential to good writing, and wrote some manuals on the grouping of the parts of speech. But they all went far astray from the truth and never even dreamt what it is that makes composition attractive and beautiful. At any rate, when I resolved to treat of this subject methodically, I tried to find out whether anything at all had been said about it by earlier writers, and particularly by the philosophers of the Porch, because I knew that these worthies were accustomed to pay no little attention to the department of discourse: one must give them their due. But in no single instance did I light upon any contribution, great or small, made by any author, of any reputation at all events, to the subject of my choice. As for the two treatises which Chrysippus has bequeathed to us, entitled “on the grouping of the parts of speech,” they contain, as those who have read the books are aware, not a rhetorical but a dialectical investigation, dealing with the grouping of propositions, true and false, possible and impossible, admissible and variable, ambiguous, and so forth. These contribute no assistance or benefit to civil oratory, so far at any rate as charm and beauty of style are concerned; and yet these qualities should be the chief aim of composition. So I desisted from this inquiry, and falling back upon my own resources proceeded to consider whether I could find some starting-point indicated by nature itself, since nature is generally accepted as the best first principle in every operation and every inquiry. So applying myself to certain lines of investigation, I was beginning to think that the plan was making fair progress, when I became aware that my path of progress was leading me in a quite different direction, and not towards the goal which I

1 αὐτῶι F,M 2 ὂν F: om. P || τ(ω) λογ(ω) P || γε om. PMV || ἔγραψαν PM: ἔγραψεν F: ἐπέγραψαν V || ὑπερ * * P 4 ἀπεπλανήθησαν PMV || οὐδε P, MV 5 ἐγὼ γ’ οὖν F: ἔγωγ’ οὖν PMV || ὅτε διέγνων PMV: ὅτ’ ἔγνων F 9 τόπου] λόγου F || τε ποιημένους P 10 οὐδαμεῖ (suprascr. ηι) P1|| δ’ om. P || εἰρημένον om. PMV || γοῦν om. PV 13 περὶ] οὐ περὶ PM 14 οὐ] καὶ P 16 τε] δὲ PMV 17 ἀμφιλόβων P 18 οὔτ’ ὠφέλειαν om. P 19 συμβαλλομένων PMV 20 καὶ F: ἢ PMV 22 δὲ PMV 24 δοκεῖ] δοκεῖ καὶ P 25 μοι FP: τινι MV || τὰ πράγματα προχωρεῖν F 26 ἐμὲ om. F || προὐθέμην PMV: πρ[ου]θέμην ‘πορευοίμην cum litura F4.οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον= ‘ne somnio quidem viderunt,’ ‘ne per somnia quidem viderunt.’6. Forἔγνων(as a v.l. for διέγνων)συντάττεσθαιcp.Antiqq. Rom.i. 1 ... οὔτε διαβολὰς καθ’ ἑτέρων ἐγνωκὼς ποιεῖσθαι συγγραφέων. The passage which begins here and ends with the words πραγματείας ἀπέστην is quoted under the headDialecticain von Arnim’sStoicorum Veterum Fragmentaii. 67.9 ff. Cic.Brut.31. 118 “Tum Brutus: Quam hoc idem in nostris contingere intellego quod in Graecis, ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant sintque architecti paene verborum, idem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur.”13. Diogenes Laertius (vii. 192. 3), in enumerating Chrysippus’ logical works, writes: σύνταξις δευτέρα· περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῶν λεγομένων ε′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως τῶν λεγομένων δ′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως καὶ στοιχείων τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς Φίλιππον γ′, περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου πρὸς Νικίαν α′, περὶ τοῦ πρὸς ἕτερα λεγομένου α′.23.φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν: this suggests the Stoic point of view.26. The reading of F looks like an attempt to gloss προὐθέμην.

4.οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον= ‘ne somnio quidem viderunt,’ ‘ne per somnia quidem viderunt.’

6. Forἔγνων(as a v.l. for διέγνων)συντάττεσθαιcp.Antiqq. Rom.i. 1 ... οὔτε διαβολὰς καθ’ ἑτέρων ἐγνωκὼς ποιεῖσθαι συγγραφέων. The passage which begins here and ends with the words πραγματείας ἀπέστην is quoted under the headDialecticain von Arnim’sStoicorum Veterum Fragmentaii. 67.

9 ff. Cic.Brut.31. 118 “Tum Brutus: Quam hoc idem in nostris contingere intellego quod in Graecis, ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant sintque architecti paene verborum, idem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur.”

13. Diogenes Laertius (vii. 192. 3), in enumerating Chrysippus’ logical works, writes: σύνταξις δευτέρα· περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῶν λεγομένων ε′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως τῶν λεγομένων δ′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως καὶ στοιχείων τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς Φίλιππον γ′, περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου πρὸς Νικίαν α′, περὶ τοῦ πρὸς ἕτερα λεγομένου α′.

23.φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν: this suggests the Stoic point of view.

26. The reading of F looks like an attempt to gloss προὐθέμην.

καὶ ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ἐλθεῖν, ἀπέστην. κωλύσει δ’ οὐδὲνἴσως κἀκείνης ἅψασθαι τῆς θεωρίας καὶ τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν δι’ἃς ἐξέλιπον αὐτήν, ἵνα μή με δόξῃ τις ἀγνοίᾳ παρελθεῖναὐτὴν ἀλλὰ προαιρέσει.Vἐδόκει δή μοι τῇ φύσει μάλιστα ἡμᾶς ἑπομένους οὕτω 5δεῖν ἁρμόττειν τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ἐκείνη βούλεται.αὐτίκα τὰ ὀνόματα πρῶτα ἡγούμην τάττειν τῶν ῥημάτων (τὰμὲν γὰρ τὴν οὐσίαν δηλοῦν, τὰ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός, πρότερονδ’ εἶναι τῇ φύσει τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν συμβεβηκότων), ὡς τὰὉμηρικὰ ἔχει ταυτί· 10ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπονκαὶμῆνιν ἄειδε, θεάκαὶἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε λιπών 15καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια τούτοις· ἡγεῖται μὲν γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τὰὀνόματα, ἕπεται δὲ τὰ ῥήματα. πιθανὸς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ’ οὐκἀληθὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναί μοι. ἕτερα γοῦν παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις παραδείγματαπαρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ κείμενα ἐναντίως συντεταγμέναἢ ταῦτα συντέτακται, καλὰ δὲ οὐχ ἧττον καὶ πιθανά. τίνα 20οὖν ἐστι ταῦτα;[99]sought and which I felt I must attain; and so I gave up the attempt. I may as well, perhaps, touch on that inquiry also, and state the reasons which led me to abandon it, so that I may not be open to the suspicion of having passed it by in ignorance, and not of deliberate choice.CHAPTER VNO GRAMMATICAL ORDER PRESCRIBED BY NATUREWell, my notion was that we ought to follow mother nature to the utmost, and to link together the parts of speech according to her promptings. For example, I thought I must place nouns before verbs: the former, you see, indicate the substance, the latter the accident, and in the nature of things the substance takes precedence of its accidents! Thus we find in Homer:—The hero to me chant thou, Song-queen, the resourceful man;[102]andThe Wrath sing, Goddess, thou;[103]andThe sun leapt up, as he left;[104]and other lines of the same kind, where the nouns lead the way and the verbs follow. The principle is attractive, but I came to the conclusion that it was not sound. At any rate, a reader might confront me with other instances in the same poet where the arrangement is the opposite of this, and yet the lines are no less beautiful and attractive. What are the instances in point?

ἐδόκει δή μοι τῇ φύσει μάλιστα ἡμᾶς ἑπομένους οὕτω 5δεῖν ἁρμόττειν τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ἐκείνη βούλεται.αὐτίκα τὰ ὀνόματα πρῶτα ἡγούμην τάττειν τῶν ῥημάτων (τὰμὲν γὰρ τὴν οὐσίαν δηλοῦν, τὰ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός, πρότερονδ’ εἶναι τῇ φύσει τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν συμβεβηκότων), ὡς τὰὉμηρικὰ ἔχει ταυτί· 10

ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον

καὶ

μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά

καὶ

ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε λιπών 15

καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια τούτοις· ἡγεῖται μὲν γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τὰὀνόματα, ἕπεται δὲ τὰ ῥήματα. πιθανὸς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ’ οὐκἀληθὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναί μοι. ἕτερα γοῦν παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις παραδείγματαπαρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ κείμενα ἐναντίως συντεταγμέναἢ ταῦτα συντέτακται, καλὰ δὲ οὐχ ἧττον καὶ πιθανά. τίνα 20οὖν ἐστι ταῦτα;

[99]sought and which I felt I must attain; and so I gave up the attempt. I may as well, perhaps, touch on that inquiry also, and state the reasons which led me to abandon it, so that I may not be open to the suspicion of having passed it by in ignorance, and not of deliberate choice.CHAPTER VNO GRAMMATICAL ORDER PRESCRIBED BY NATUREWell, my notion was that we ought to follow mother nature to the utmost, and to link together the parts of speech according to her promptings. For example, I thought I must place nouns before verbs: the former, you see, indicate the substance, the latter the accident, and in the nature of things the substance takes precedence of its accidents! Thus we find in Homer:—The hero to me chant thou, Song-queen, the resourceful man;[102]andThe Wrath sing, Goddess, thou;[103]andThe sun leapt up, as he left;[104]and other lines of the same kind, where the nouns lead the way and the verbs follow. The principle is attractive, but I came to the conclusion that it was not sound. At any rate, a reader might confront me with other instances in the same poet where the arrangement is the opposite of this, and yet the lines are no less beautiful and attractive. What are the instances in point?

[99]

sought and which I felt I must attain; and so I gave up the attempt. I may as well, perhaps, touch on that inquiry also, and state the reasons which led me to abandon it, so that I may not be open to the suspicion of having passed it by in ignorance, and not of deliberate choice.

Well, my notion was that we ought to follow mother nature to the utmost, and to link together the parts of speech according to her promptings. For example, I thought I must place nouns before verbs: the former, you see, indicate the substance, the latter the accident, and in the nature of things the substance takes precedence of its accidents! Thus we find in Homer:—

The hero to me chant thou, Song-queen, the resourceful man;[102]

and

The Wrath sing, Goddess, thou;[103]

and

The sun leapt up, as he left;[104]

and other lines of the same kind, where the nouns lead the way and the verbs follow. The principle is attractive, but I came to the conclusion that it was not sound. At any rate, a reader might confront me with other instances in the same poet where the arrangement is the opposite of this, and yet the lines are no less beautiful and attractive. What are the instances in point?

1 δὲ PV 3 ἀγνοία F 6 ἐκείνηι βεβούληται P 7 πρῶτα post ὀνόματα om. PMV || ἡγούμην PMV: ἠξίουν F || πρὸ ante τῶν add. PMV 8 οὐσίαν FV: αἰτίαν PM || δηλοῖ F 9 δε P, V || τῇ φύσει om. F 10 ταυτί om. PMV 18 παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις PMV: παράσχοι τις ἂν F 19 τ(ω) αυτ(ω) P 20 δὲ Sauppius: τε libri5. There seems to be a touch of quiet humour in Dionysius’ retrospection (during thiscauserieof his) on the simplicity which had led him to think that he could framea priorirules as to Nature’s Order. Cp.10215 in particular.7. F’s reading, πρῶτα τῶν ῥημάτων, receives some support from17418infra. But cp. Steph. s.v. πρῶτος.—F’s reading ἠξίουν is probably due to some corrector who was unaware that there is good classical authority for ἡγοῦμαι = ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν.The following passage of Quintilian (ix. 4. 23-27) illustrates this chapter in many ways: “est et alius naturalis ordo, utviros ac feminas, diem ac noctem, ortum et occasumdicas potius quam retrorsum. quaedam ordine permutato fiunt supervacua, utfratres gemini; nam sigeminipraecesserint,fratresaddere non est necesse. illa nimia quorundam fuit observatio, ut vocabula verbis, verba rursus adverbiis, nomina appositis et pronominibus essent priora. nam fit contra quoque frequenter non indecore. nec non et illud nimiae superstitionis, uti quaeque sint tempore, ita facere etiam ordine priora; non quin frequenter sit hoc melius, sed quia interim plus valent ante gesta ideoque levioribus superponenda sunt. verbo sensum cludere, multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est. in verbis enim sermonis vis est. si id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit apud summos Graecos Latinosque oratores frequentissime. sine dubio erit omne, quod non cludet, hyperbaton, et ipsum hoc inter tropos vel figuras, quae sunt virtutes, receptum est. non enim ad pedes verba dimensa sunt, ideoque ex loco transferuntur in locum, ut iungantur, quo congruunt maxime. sicut in structura saxorum rudium etiam ipsa enormitas invenit, cui applicari et in quo possit insistere. felicissimus tamen sermo est, cui et rectus ordo et apta iunctura et cum his numerus opportune cadens contigit.”8.πρότερον: probably adverbial; cp. Hom.Il.vii. 424 and ix. 551.15. The completed line (Odyss.iii. 1) is: ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε, λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην κτλ.18.παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις: for the middle voice cp.2146 and12214.20. Usener’s οἷά τινα seems a needless and somewhat violent change for the manuscript reading τίνα οὖν. No doubt οἷά ἐστι ταῦτα is found in10027; but (1) Dionysius’ love of μεταβολή in style should be remembered, (2) οἷά τινα is not a usual phrase, (3) the lively rhetorical question is characteristic.

5. There seems to be a touch of quiet humour in Dionysius’ retrospection (during thiscauserieof his) on the simplicity which had led him to think that he could framea priorirules as to Nature’s Order. Cp.10215 in particular.

7. F’s reading, πρῶτα τῶν ῥημάτων, receives some support from17418infra. But cp. Steph. s.v. πρῶτος.—F’s reading ἠξίουν is probably due to some corrector who was unaware that there is good classical authority for ἡγοῦμαι = ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν.

The following passage of Quintilian (ix. 4. 23-27) illustrates this chapter in many ways: “est et alius naturalis ordo, utviros ac feminas, diem ac noctem, ortum et occasumdicas potius quam retrorsum. quaedam ordine permutato fiunt supervacua, utfratres gemini; nam sigeminipraecesserint,fratresaddere non est necesse. illa nimia quorundam fuit observatio, ut vocabula verbis, verba rursus adverbiis, nomina appositis et pronominibus essent priora. nam fit contra quoque frequenter non indecore. nec non et illud nimiae superstitionis, uti quaeque sint tempore, ita facere etiam ordine priora; non quin frequenter sit hoc melius, sed quia interim plus valent ante gesta ideoque levioribus superponenda sunt. verbo sensum cludere, multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est. in verbis enim sermonis vis est. si id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit apud summos Graecos Latinosque oratores frequentissime. sine dubio erit omne, quod non cludet, hyperbaton, et ipsum hoc inter tropos vel figuras, quae sunt virtutes, receptum est. non enim ad pedes verba dimensa sunt, ideoque ex loco transferuntur in locum, ut iungantur, quo congruunt maxime. sicut in structura saxorum rudium etiam ipsa enormitas invenit, cui applicari et in quo possit insistere. felicissimus tamen sermo est, cui et rectus ordo et apta iunctura et cum his numerus opportune cadens contigit.”

8.πρότερον: probably adverbial; cp. Hom.Il.vii. 424 and ix. 551.

15. The completed line (Odyss.iii. 1) is: ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε, λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην κτλ.

18.παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις: for the middle voice cp.2146 and12214.

20. Usener’s οἷά τινα seems a needless and somewhat violent change for the manuscript reading τίνα οὖν. No doubt οἷά ἐστι ταῦτα is found in10027; but (1) Dionysius’ love of μεταβολή in style should be remembered, (2) οἷά τινα is not a usual phrase, (3) the lively rhetorical question is characteristic.

κλῦθί μευ, αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος Ἀτρυτώνηκαὶἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι, Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι ...μνῆσαι πατρὸς σεῖο, θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ.ἐν γὰρ τούτοις ἡγεῖται μὲν τὰ ῥήματα, ὑποτέτακται δὲ τὰ 5ὀνόματα· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν αἰτιάσαιτο τὴν σύνταξιν αὐτῶν ὡςἀηδῆ.ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἄμεινον ἐδόκουν εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα πρότερατάττειν τῶν ἐπιρρημάτων, ἐπειδὴ πρότερόν ἐστι τῇ φύσει τὸποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον τῶν συνεδρευόντων αὐτοῖς, τρόπου λέγω καὶ 10τόπου καὶ χρόνου καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων, ἃ δὴ καλοῦμενἐπιρρήματα, παραδείγμασι χρώμενος τούτοις·τύπτε δ’ ἐπιστροφάδην, τῶν δὲ στόνος ὤρνυτ’ ἀεικής ...ἤριπε δ’ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσεν ...ἐκλίνθη δ’ ἑτέρωσε, δέπας δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός. 15ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ δὴ τούτοις ὕστερα τέτακται [ἅμα] τῶν ῥημάτωντὰ ἐπιρρήματα. καὶ τοῦτο πιθανὸν μὲν ὡς τὸ πρῶτον, οὐκἀληθὲς δὲ ὡς οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνο. τάδε γὰρ δὴ παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇἐναντίως ἢ ἐκεῖνα εἴρηται·βοτρυδὸν δὲ πέτονται ἐπ’ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσι ... 20σήμερον ἄνδρα φάοσδε μογοστόκος Εἰλείθυιαἐκφανεῖ.ἆρ’ οὖν τι χείρω γέγονε τὰ ποιήματα ὑποταχθέντων ἐνταῦθατοῖς ἐπιρρήμασι τῶν ῥημάτων; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι.ἔτι καὶ τόδε ᾤμην δεῖν μὴ παρέργως φυλάττειν, ὅπως τὰ 25πρότερα τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ τῇ τάξει πρότερα λαμβάνηται· οἷάἐστι ταυτί·[101]Hear me, thou Child of the Aegis-bearer, unwearied Power;[105]andTell to me, Muses, now in Olympian halls that abide;[106]andRemember thy father, Achilles, thou godlike glorious man.[107]In these lines the verbs are in the front rank, and the nouns stationed behind them. Yet no one would impugn the arrangement of the words as unpleasant.Moreover, I imagined it was better to place verbs in front of adverbs, since in the nature of things what acts or is acted upon takes precedence of those auxiliaries, modal, local, temporal, and the like, which we call adverbs. I relied on the following as examples:—Smote them on this side and on that, and arose the ghastly groan;[108]Fell she backward-reeling, and gasped her spirit away;[109]Reeled he backward: the cup from his hand-grasp fell to the floor.[110]In all these cases the adverbs are placed after the verbs. This principle, like the other, is attractive; but it is equally unsound. For here are passages in the same poet expressed in the opposite way:Clusterwise hover they ever above the flowers of spring;[111]To-day shall Eileithyia the Queen of Travail bringA man to the light.[112]Well, are the lines at all inferior because the verbs are placed after the adverbs? No one can say so.Once more, I imagined that I ought always most scrupulously to observe the principle that things earlier in time should be inserted earlier in the sentence. The following are examples:—

κλῦθί μευ, αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος Ἀτρυτώνη

καὶ

ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι, Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι ...μνῆσαι πατρὸς σεῖο, θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ.

ἐν γὰρ τούτοις ἡγεῖται μὲν τὰ ῥήματα, ὑποτέτακται δὲ τὰ 5ὀνόματα· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν αἰτιάσαιτο τὴν σύνταξιν αὐτῶν ὡςἀηδῆ.ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἄμεινον ἐδόκουν εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα πρότερατάττειν τῶν ἐπιρρημάτων, ἐπειδὴ πρότερόν ἐστι τῇ φύσει τὸποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον τῶν συνεδρευόντων αὐτοῖς, τρόπου λέγω καὶ 10τόπου καὶ χρόνου καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων, ἃ δὴ καλοῦμενἐπιρρήματα, παραδείγμασι χρώμενος τούτοις·

τύπτε δ’ ἐπιστροφάδην, τῶν δὲ στόνος ὤρνυτ’ ἀεικής ...ἤριπε δ’ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσεν ...ἐκλίνθη δ’ ἑτέρωσε, δέπας δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός. 15

ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ δὴ τούτοις ὕστερα τέτακται [ἅμα] τῶν ῥημάτωντὰ ἐπιρρήματα. καὶ τοῦτο πιθανὸν μὲν ὡς τὸ πρῶτον, οὐκἀληθὲς δὲ ὡς οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνο. τάδε γὰρ δὴ παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇἐναντίως ἢ ἐκεῖνα εἴρηται·

βοτρυδὸν δὲ πέτονται ἐπ’ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσι ... 20σήμερον ἄνδρα φάοσδε μογοστόκος Εἰλείθυιαἐκφανεῖ.

ἆρ’ οὖν τι χείρω γέγονε τὰ ποιήματα ὑποταχθέντων ἐνταῦθατοῖς ἐπιρρήμασι τῶν ῥημάτων; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι.ἔτι καὶ τόδε ᾤμην δεῖν μὴ παρέργως φυλάττειν, ὅπως τὰ 25πρότερα τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ τῇ τάξει πρότερα λαμβάνηται· οἷάἐστι ταυτί·

[101]Hear me, thou Child of the Aegis-bearer, unwearied Power;[105]andTell to me, Muses, now in Olympian halls that abide;[106]andRemember thy father, Achilles, thou godlike glorious man.[107]In these lines the verbs are in the front rank, and the nouns stationed behind them. Yet no one would impugn the arrangement of the words as unpleasant.Moreover, I imagined it was better to place verbs in front of adverbs, since in the nature of things what acts or is acted upon takes precedence of those auxiliaries, modal, local, temporal, and the like, which we call adverbs. I relied on the following as examples:—Smote them on this side and on that, and arose the ghastly groan;[108]Fell she backward-reeling, and gasped her spirit away;[109]Reeled he backward: the cup from his hand-grasp fell to the floor.[110]In all these cases the adverbs are placed after the verbs. This principle, like the other, is attractive; but it is equally unsound. For here are passages in the same poet expressed in the opposite way:Clusterwise hover they ever above the flowers of spring;[111]To-day shall Eileithyia the Queen of Travail bringA man to the light.[112]Well, are the lines at all inferior because the verbs are placed after the adverbs? No one can say so.Once more, I imagined that I ought always most scrupulously to observe the principle that things earlier in time should be inserted earlier in the sentence. The following are examples:—

[101]

Hear me, thou Child of the Aegis-bearer, unwearied Power;[105]

and

Tell to me, Muses, now in Olympian halls that abide;[106]

and

Remember thy father, Achilles, thou godlike glorious man.[107]

In these lines the verbs are in the front rank, and the nouns stationed behind them. Yet no one would impugn the arrangement of the words as unpleasant.

Moreover, I imagined it was better to place verbs in front of adverbs, since in the nature of things what acts or is acted upon takes precedence of those auxiliaries, modal, local, temporal, and the like, which we call adverbs. I relied on the following as examples:—

Smote them on this side and on that, and arose the ghastly groan;[108]Fell she backward-reeling, and gasped her spirit away;[109]Reeled he backward: the cup from his hand-grasp fell to the floor.[110]

In all these cases the adverbs are placed after the verbs. This principle, like the other, is attractive; but it is equally unsound. For here are passages in the same poet expressed in the opposite way:

Clusterwise hover they ever above the flowers of spring;[111]To-day shall Eileithyia the Queen of Travail bringA man to the light.[112]

Well, are the lines at all inferior because the verbs are placed after the adverbs? No one can say so.

Once more, I imagined that I ought always most scrupulously to observe the principle that things earlier in time should be inserted earlier in the sentence. The following are examples:—

3 ἕσπετε F || ἔχουσαι. καὶ M 4 σοῖο Hom. 5 τὰ prius om. PMV 6 αὐτῶν PMV: ταύτην F 8 πρότερα τάττειν PMV: προτάττειν F 9 ἐστι πρότερον F 10 πάσχειν F112 παραδείγμασιν P 13 ὄρνυτ’ PMV 16 γὰρ δὴ F: γὰρ PMV || ἅμα τῶν FPM: καὶ τῶν V1: τῶν V218 οὐδὲ PMV || τάδε γὰρ δὴ F: καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ ταῦτα PMV || αὐτῶι F: om. PMV 19 ἢ ἐκεῖνα PMV: ἐκείνοις F 21 φάος δὲ F: φάωσδε P || εἰλήθυια PM 23 χείρω τι PMV || γέγονεν P || ἐνταῦθα PMV: ἐνθάδε F 24 οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι F: om. PMV 25 τόδε Sylburgius: τάδε libri || ὠιμην F, M: ὠιόμην P, V 26 τῆι τάξει καὶ τοῖς χρόνοις F 27 ταυτί PMV: ταῦτα F8.πρότερατάττειν ... ἐπειδὴπρότερονἐστι: probably this pointed repetition is intentional on the part of Dionysius. πρότερα τάττειν might afterwards be changed to προτάττειν for the sake of brevity.18. ταῦτα (PMV) may be right, as ταῦτα in Dionysius can be used of what follows as well as of what precedes; cp. n. on1065. So in PlatoRep.vi. 510 ῥᾷον γὰρ τούτων προειρημένων μαθήσει, and Xen.Anab.iii. 1. 41 ὡς μὴ τοῦτο μόνον ἐννοῶνται τί πείσονται ἀλλὰ καὶ τί ποιήσουσι. For Thucydides’ usage cp. Shilleto’s note on Thucyd. i. 31 § 4. In10016-10225 (and further) there are several instances in which F’s readings (though given in the text) may emanate from some early Greek editor rather than from Dionysius himself: cp.10024 with1125.26. Cp. Ter.Andr.i. 1. 100 “funus interim | procedit: sequimur; ad sepulcrum venimus; | in ignem impositast; fletur.”

8.πρότερατάττειν ... ἐπειδὴπρότερονἐστι: probably this pointed repetition is intentional on the part of Dionysius. πρότερα τάττειν might afterwards be changed to προτάττειν for the sake of brevity.

18. ταῦτα (PMV) may be right, as ταῦτα in Dionysius can be used of what follows as well as of what precedes; cp. n. on1065. So in PlatoRep.vi. 510 ῥᾷον γὰρ τούτων προειρημένων μαθήσει, and Xen.Anab.iii. 1. 41 ὡς μὴ τοῦτο μόνον ἐννοῶνται τί πείσονται ἀλλὰ καὶ τί ποιήσουσι. For Thucydides’ usage cp. Shilleto’s note on Thucyd. i. 31 § 4. In10016-10225 (and further) there are several instances in which F’s readings (though given in the text) may emanate from some early Greek editor rather than from Dionysius himself: cp.10024 with1125.

26. Cp. Ter.Andr.i. 1. 100 “funus interim | procedit: sequimur; ad sepulcrum venimus; | in ignem impositast; fletur.”

αὖ ἔρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειρανκαὶλίγξε βιός, νευρὴ δὲ μέγ’ ἴαχεν, ἆλτο δ’ ὀϊστόςκαὶσφαῖραν ἔπειτ’ ἔρριψε μετ’ ἀμφίπολον βασίλεια· 5ἀμφιπόλου μὲν ἅμαρτε, βαθείῃ δ’ ἔμβαλε δίνῃ.νὴ Δία, φαίη τις ἄν, εἴ γε μὴ καὶ ἄλλα ἦν πολλὰ οὐχ οὕτωσυντεταγμένα ποιήματα οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ ταῦτα καλά·πλῆξε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος σχίζῃ δρυός, ἣν λίπε κείων.πρότερον γὰρ δήπου τὸ ἐπανατείνασθαί ἐστι τοῦ πλῆξαι. καὶ 10ἔτιἤλασεν ἄγχι στάς, πέλεκυς δ’ ἀπέκοψε τένονταςαὐχενίους.πρῶτον γὰρ δήπου προσῆκεν τῷ μέλλοντι τὸν πέλεκυνἐμβάλλειν εἰς τοὺς τένοντας τοῦ ταύρου τὸ στῆναι αὐτοῦ 15πλησίον. ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἠξίουν τὰ μὲν ὀνοματικὰ προτάττειντῶν ἐπιθέτων, τὰ δὲ προσηγορικὰ τῶν ὀνοματικῶν,τὰς δ’ ἀντονομασίας τῶν προσηγορικῶν, ἔν τε τοῖς ῥήμασιφυλάττειν, ἵνα τὰ ὀρθὰ τῶν ἐγκλινομένων ἡγῆται καὶ τὰπαρεμφατικὰ τῶν ἀπαρεμφάτων, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά. 20πάντα δὲ ταῦτα διεσάλευεν ἡ πεῖρα καὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς ἄξιαἀπέφαινε. τοτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἐγίνετο καὶ τῶν ὁμοίωναὐτοῖς ἡδεῖα ἡ σύνθεσις καὶ καλή, τοτὲ δ’ ἐκ τῶν μὴ τοιούτωνἀλλ’ ἐναντίων. διὰ ταύτας μὲν δὴ τὰς αἰτίας τῆς τοιαύτηςθεωρίας ἀπέστην. ἐμνήσθην δ’ αὐτῶν καὶ νῦν οὐχ ὡς σπουδῆς 25[103]They drew back the beasts’ necks first, then severed the throats and flayed;[113]andClangeth the horn, loud singeth the sinew, and leapeth the shaft;[114]andThe ball by the princess was tossed thereafter to one of her girls;But it missed the maid, and was lost in the river’s eddying swirls.[115]“Certainly,” a reader might reply,—“if it were not for the fact that there are plenty of other lines not arranged in this order of yours, and yet as fine as those you have quoted; asAnd he smote it, upstrained to the stroke, with an oak-billet cloven apart.[116]Surely the arms must be raisedbeforethe blow is dealt! And further:—He struck as he stood hard by, and the axe through the sinews shoreOf the neck.[117]Surely a man who is about to drive his axe into a bull’s sinews should take his stand near itfirst!”Still further: I imagined it the correct thing to put my substantives before my adjectives, appellatives before substantives, pronouns before appellatives; and with verbs, to be very careful that primary should precede secondary forms, and indicatives infinitives,—and so on. But trial invariably wrecked these views and revealed their utter worthlessness. At one time charm and beauty of composition did result from these and similar collocations,—at other times from collocations not of this sort but the opposite. And so for these reasons I abandoned all such speculations as the above. Nor is it for any serious value it

αὖ ἔρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειραν

καὶ

λίγξε βιός, νευρὴ δὲ μέγ’ ἴαχεν, ἆλτο δ’ ὀϊστός

καὶ

σφαῖραν ἔπειτ’ ἔρριψε μετ’ ἀμφίπολον βασίλεια· 5ἀμφιπόλου μὲν ἅμαρτε, βαθείῃ δ’ ἔμβαλε δίνῃ.

νὴ Δία, φαίη τις ἄν, εἴ γε μὴ καὶ ἄλλα ἦν πολλὰ οὐχ οὕτωσυντεταγμένα ποιήματα οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ ταῦτα καλά·

πλῆξε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος σχίζῃ δρυός, ἣν λίπε κείων.

πρότερον γὰρ δήπου τὸ ἐπανατείνασθαί ἐστι τοῦ πλῆξαι. καὶ 10ἔτι

ἤλασεν ἄγχι στάς, πέλεκυς δ’ ἀπέκοψε τένονταςαὐχενίους.

πρῶτον γὰρ δήπου προσῆκεν τῷ μέλλοντι τὸν πέλεκυνἐμβάλλειν εἰς τοὺς τένοντας τοῦ ταύρου τὸ στῆναι αὐτοῦ 15πλησίον. ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἠξίουν τὰ μὲν ὀνοματικὰ προτάττειντῶν ἐπιθέτων, τὰ δὲ προσηγορικὰ τῶν ὀνοματικῶν,τὰς δ’ ἀντονομασίας τῶν προσηγορικῶν, ἔν τε τοῖς ῥήμασιφυλάττειν, ἵνα τὰ ὀρθὰ τῶν ἐγκλινομένων ἡγῆται καὶ τὰπαρεμφατικὰ τῶν ἀπαρεμφάτων, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά. 20πάντα δὲ ταῦτα διεσάλευεν ἡ πεῖρα καὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς ἄξιαἀπέφαινε. τοτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἐγίνετο καὶ τῶν ὁμοίωναὐτοῖς ἡδεῖα ἡ σύνθεσις καὶ καλή, τοτὲ δ’ ἐκ τῶν μὴ τοιούτωνἀλλ’ ἐναντίων. διὰ ταύτας μὲν δὴ τὰς αἰτίας τῆς τοιαύτηςθεωρίας ἀπέστην. ἐμνήσθην δ’ αὐτῶν καὶ νῦν οὐχ ὡς σπουδῆς 25

[103]They drew back the beasts’ necks first, then severed the throats and flayed;[113]andClangeth the horn, loud singeth the sinew, and leapeth the shaft;[114]andThe ball by the princess was tossed thereafter to one of her girls;But it missed the maid, and was lost in the river’s eddying swirls.[115]“Certainly,” a reader might reply,—“if it were not for the fact that there are plenty of other lines not arranged in this order of yours, and yet as fine as those you have quoted; asAnd he smote it, upstrained to the stroke, with an oak-billet cloven apart.[116]Surely the arms must be raisedbeforethe blow is dealt! And further:—He struck as he stood hard by, and the axe through the sinews shoreOf the neck.[117]Surely a man who is about to drive his axe into a bull’s sinews should take his stand near itfirst!”Still further: I imagined it the correct thing to put my substantives before my adjectives, appellatives before substantives, pronouns before appellatives; and with verbs, to be very careful that primary should precede secondary forms, and indicatives infinitives,—and so on. But trial invariably wrecked these views and revealed their utter worthlessness. At one time charm and beauty of composition did result from these and similar collocations,—at other times from collocations not of this sort but the opposite. And so for these reasons I abandoned all such speculations as the above. Nor is it for any serious value it

[103]

They drew back the beasts’ necks first, then severed the throats and flayed;[113]

and

Clangeth the horn, loud singeth the sinew, and leapeth the shaft;[114]

and

The ball by the princess was tossed thereafter to one of her girls;But it missed the maid, and was lost in the river’s eddying swirls.[115]

“Certainly,” a reader might reply,—“if it were not for the fact that there are plenty of other lines not arranged in this order of yours, and yet as fine as those you have quoted; as

And he smote it, upstrained to the stroke, with an oak-billet cloven apart.[116]

Surely the arms must be raisedbeforethe blow is dealt! And further:—

He struck as he stood hard by, and the axe through the sinews shoreOf the neck.[117]

Surely a man who is about to drive his axe into a bull’s sinews should take his stand near itfirst!”

Still further: I imagined it the correct thing to put my substantives before my adjectives, appellatives before substantives, pronouns before appellatives; and with verbs, to be very careful that primary should precede secondary forms, and indicatives infinitives,—and so on. But trial invariably wrecked these views and revealed their utter worthlessness. At one time charm and beauty of composition did result from these and similar collocations,—at other times from collocations not of this sort but the opposite. And so for these reasons I abandoned all such speculations as the above. Nor is it for any serious value it

3 ἆλτο P 5 ἔρριψεν P 7 εἴ γε μὴ F: εἰ PM || καὶ ἄλλα PMV: οὐχ * F1: ἄλλα suprascr. F2|| ἦν πολλὰ F: πολλὰ ἦν PMa || οὕτως FP18 ἢ FV: ἦ M: ἦν P 9 πλῆξε δ’ F: πλῆξεν PMV: κόψε δ’ Hom. || ἣν λίπε] κάλλιπε P || κιών libri 14 προσῆκεν F: προσήκει PMV 16 τούτοις καὶ MVs || ἠξίου P 18 δὲ PMV || ἀντωνομασίας PF2M2: ὠνομασίας M1: ἀντωνυμίας F1V || ῥήμασιν P 19 ἐγκεκλιμένων PMV 20 ἀπαρεμφατικὰ PV || παρεμφατικῶν P 21 διεσάλευσεν MV 22 ἀπέφαινεν P: ἀπέφηνε MV 23 τότε δ’ F: τοτὲ δὲ PV: τὸ δὲ M 24 ἀλλ’] μηδ’ F || τοιαύτης F: om. PMV 25 δὲ PMV1. In Homer αὖ ἔρυσαν should probably be printed as one word, αὐέρυσαν. Cp. note on7121supra.7. All this passage is in close correspondence with Quintil. ix. 4. 24, as quoted in the note on987supra.9. Homer’s line actually begins with κόψε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος. Here Dionysius gives πλῆξε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος, while inAntiqq. Rom.vii. 62 he has κόψε δ’ ἀπαρχόμενος. In both cases he is, doubtless, quoting from memory.10. The order actually adopted by Homer in these passages is that which the rhetoricians describe as πρωθύστερον, ὕστερον πρότερον, ὑστερολογία.16.ἠξίουν τὰ μὲν ὀνοματικὰ προτάττειν τῶν ἐπιθέτων: the Greek adjective (unless emphatic) is usually placed after the noun. But it could easily be shown from the varying usage of the modern European nations that there is no ‘law of nature,’ one way or the other, on the subject. In general, however, these logical notions of grammatical order which Dionysius felt himself prompted to reject on behalf of Greek (which is synthetic in character) tally with the actual practice of the modern analytical languages.

1. In Homer αὖ ἔρυσαν should probably be printed as one word, αὐέρυσαν. Cp. note on7121supra.

7. All this passage is in close correspondence with Quintil. ix. 4. 24, as quoted in the note on987supra.

9. Homer’s line actually begins with κόψε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος. Here Dionysius gives πλῆξε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος, while inAntiqq. Rom.vii. 62 he has κόψε δ’ ἀπαρχόμενος. In both cases he is, doubtless, quoting from memory.

10. The order actually adopted by Homer in these passages is that which the rhetoricians describe as πρωθύστερον, ὕστερον πρότερον, ὑστερολογία.

16.ἠξίουν τὰ μὲν ὀνοματικὰ προτάττειν τῶν ἐπιθέτων: the Greek adjective (unless emphatic) is usually placed after the noun. But it could easily be shown from the varying usage of the modern European nations that there is no ‘law of nature,’ one way or the other, on the subject. In general, however, these logical notions of grammatical order which Dionysius felt himself prompted to reject on behalf of Greek (which is synthetic in character) tally with the actual practice of the modern analytical languages.

Back to Index Next